Literature DB >> 16782165

Cone contributions to signals for accommodation and the relationship to refractive error.

Frances J Rucker1, Philip B Kruger.   

Abstract

The accommodation response is sensitive to the chromatic properties of the stimulus, a sensitivity presumed to be related to making use of the longitudinal chromatic aberration of the eye to decode the sign of the defocus. Thus, the relative sensitivity to the long- (L) and middle-wavelength (M) cones may influence accommodation and may also be related to an individual's refractive error. Accommodation was measured continuously while subjects viewed a sine wave grating (2.2c/d) that had different cone contrast ratios. Seven conditions tested loci that form a circle with equal vector length (0.27) at 0, 22.5, 45, 67.5, 90, 120, 145 deg. An eighth condition produced an empty field stimulus (CIE (x,y) co-ordinates (0.4554, 0.3835)). Each of the gratings moved at 0.2 Hz sinusoidally between 1.00 D and 3.00 D for 40s, while the effects of longitudinal chromatic aberration were neutralized with an achromatizing lens. Both the mean level of accommodation and the gain of the accommodative response, to sinusoidal movements of the stimulus, depended on the relative L and M cone sensitivity: Individuals more sensitive to L-cone stimulation showed a higher level of accommodation (p=0.01; F=12.05; ANOVA) and dynamic gain was higher for gratings with relatively more L-cone contrast. Refractive error showed a similar correlation: More myopic individuals showed a higher mean level of accommodation (p<0.01; F=11.42; ANOVA) and showed higher gain for gratings with relatively more L-cone than M-cone contrast (p=0.01; F=10.83 ANOVA). If luminance contrast is maximized by accommodation, long wavelengths will be imaged behind the photoreceptors. Individuals in whom luminance is dominated by L-cones may maximize luminance contrast both by accommodating more, as shown here, and by increased ocular elongation, resulting in myopia, possibly explaining the correlations reported here among relative L/M-cone sensitivity, refractive error and accommodation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16782165     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  16 in total

1.  The wavelength composition and temporal modulation of ambient lighting strongly affect refractive development in young tree shrews.

Authors:  Timothy J Gawne; John T Siegwart; Alexander H Ward; Thomas T Norton
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 3.467

2.  Determining the accommodative response from wavefront aberrations.

Authors:  Janice Tarrant; Austin Roorda; Christine F Wildsoet
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-05-01       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Juvenile Tree Shrews Do Not Maintain Emmetropia in Narrow-band Blue Light.

Authors:  Timothy J Gawne; Alexander H Ward; Thomas T Norton
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.973

Review 4.  Monochromatic and white light and the regulation of eye growth.

Authors:  Frances Rucker
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2019-04-21       Impact factor: 3.467

5.  Chick eyes compensate for chromatic simulations of hyperopic and myopic defocus: evidence that the eye uses longitudinal chromatic aberration to guide eye-growth.

Authors:  Frances J Rucker; Josh Wallman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  The effects of longitudinal chromatic aberration and a shift in the peak of the middle-wavelength sensitive cone fundamental on cone contrast.

Authors:  F J Rucker; D Osorio
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Longitudinal chromatic aberration of the human infant eye.

Authors:  Jingyun Wang; T Rowan Candy; Danielle F W Teel; Robert J Jacobs
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.129

8.  Prevalence of Color Vision Deficiency and its Correlation with Amblyopia and Refractive Errors among Primary School Children.

Authors:  Zhale Rajavi; Hamideh Sabbaghi; Ahmad Shojaei Baghini; Mehdi Yaseri; Koroush Sheibani; Ghazal Norouzi
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun

9.  M to L cone ratios determine eye sizes and baseline refractions in chickens.

Authors:  Sandra Gisbert; Frank Schaeffel
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 3.467

10.  Short-Wavelength (Violet) Light Protects Mice From Myopia Through Cone Signaling.

Authors:  Ryan Strickland; Erica G Landis; Machelle T Pardue
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 4.799

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.